Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[gadgetmac]

[robinessex]

Al Gore was also able to leverage his high visibility, his movie awards, his Nobel Prize, and his involvement in various carbon trading and other schemes into a personal fortune. When he ended his tenure as Vice President in 2001, his net worth was $2 million. By 2013, it exceeded $300 million.



I made $millions pushing CC bks. What are you going to do about it?

Al Gore 'profiting' from climate change agenda
Al Gore has been accused of profiting from the climate change agenda amid claims he is on course to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment...

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 23 February 11:41

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 23 February 11:42

[jet_noise]

gadgetmac said:

That's almost as much as Greenpeace takes in.

Every year

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Al Gore was also able to leverage his high visibility, his movie awards, his Nobel Prize, and his involvement in various carbon trading and other schemes into a personal fortune. When he ended his tenure as Vice President in 2001, his net worth was $2 million. By 2013, it exceeded $300 million.



I made $millions pushing CC bks. What are you going to do about it?

Al Gore 'profiting' from climate change agenda
Al Gore has been accused of profiting from the climate change agenda amid claims he is on course to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment...

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 23 February 11:41

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 23 February 11:42

There’s no problem with people making money out of investing in ventures cleaning up the planet. Perhaps the Exxon execs should try it rather than investing in climate misinformation and pollution.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Al Gore was also able to leverage his high visibility, his movie awards, his Nobel Prize, and his involvement in various carbon trading and other schemes into a personal fortune. When he ended his tenure as Vice President in 2001, his net worth was $2 million. By 2013, it exceeded $300 million.



I made $millions pushing CC bks. What are you going to do about it?

Al Gore 'profiting' from climate change agenda
Al Gore has been accused of profiting from the climate change agenda amid claims he is on course to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment...

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 23 February 11:41

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 23 February 11:42

There’s no problem with people making money out of investing in ventures cleaning up the planet. Perhaps the Exxon execs should try it rather than investing in climate misinformation and pollution.

How gullible are you? He's in no position to 'clean up the' planet, and doesn't have any intention too. Just milking the system for his own pocket.

[Oakey]

gadgetmac said:

There’s no problem with people making money out of investing in ventures cleaning up the planet. Perhaps the Exxon execs should try it rather than investing in climate misinformation and pollution.

What, like this?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/e...

[gadgetmac]

Oakey said:

gadgetmac said:

There’s no problem with people making money out of investing in ventures cleaning up the planet. Perhaps the Exxon execs should try it rather than investing in climate misinformation and pollution.

What, like this?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/e...

It’s hedging it’s bets. They themselves say they are at least 3 decades away from bringing anything to market

In the meantime they haven’t stopped funding the Climate Change denial cause.

It’s all about the money for them.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

How gullible are you? He's in no position to 'clean up the' planet, and doesn't have any intention too. Just milking the system for his own pocket.

Nowhere near as gullible as you Internet conspiracy theorists.

[mko9]

gadgetmac said:

$27 million over the last 20 years?!?!?! ZOMG!!11!!eleven! It's a wonder anyone believes in climate change at all!

Also, feel free to stop using the products of fossil fuels, like the computer you are using for post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post stting up this thread. I assume your computer and internet connection are solar powered?

[gadgetmac]

mko9 said:

Also, feel free to stop using the products of fossil fuels, like the computer you are using for post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post stting up this thread.

“stting up”

The level of discourse from some deniers never fails to disappoint.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

How gullible are you? He's in no position to 'clean up the' planet, and doesn't have any intention too. Just milking the system for his own pocket.

Nowhere near as gullible as you Internet conspiracy theorists.

I'm not an "Internet conspiracy theorists", whatever that is. I'me just someone who's digested all the AGW & CC stuff, and independently assigned it as bks. Gullible is someone who believes in scientists using mathmatical models that can’t work, because climate is a Chaotic system, and can't be modelled, who use 'average planet temperature', a meaningless entity, and re-assign statistical projections to be an absolute certainty. And let's add in crap temperature gathering across the planet as well.

[turbobloke]

Estimates in Wei et al of ocean global mean surface show it may have declined (i.e. become less alkaline) by 0.07 pH points in the last ~200 years, from 8.12 in the pre-industrial era to 8.05 today.

Very slight ocean de-alkalination is confusingly termed acidification to sound scary, the oceans were not acidic at the start of industrialisation and are not acidic now. Ocean changes being hyped aren't scary for another reason: seasonal changes (natural) are closely similar but over much shorter timescales (0.06 pH points over 6 months in Hagens and Middelburg) giving a far greater rate within closely similar extent. According to the UK ocean acidification research programme, de-alkalination that moves the natural system beyond its existing variations is likely to be more damaging than changes that remain within natural bounds. In which case so far, so good.

Examining the climate-relevant ~80yr 1930-2011 west pacific ocean pH trend, corresponding to the time interval when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels began and continued rising more sharply, shows slight alkalination not slight 'acidification'.

Data at the link (pdf) includes post-1930 numbers as mentioned above. The authors used a low-pass filter with a 13-year cut-off for display purposes.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/dow...

Interestingly a paper from Halevy and Bachan suggests that ocean pH at the time life emerged and thrived was between 7.5 and 6.0 which crosses the pH neutral value 7.0 and offers an ancient parallel to the recent finding from Andersson et al that healthy growing corals make the water around them more 'acidic' and continue to thrive.

This is not surprising after 500 million years of coral adaptation and survival. In general. internal pH is controlled by cell biochemistry, and in deaiing with the external environment organidsms can move ions along channels against concentration gradients where diffusion is opposed.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

How gullible are you? He's in no position to 'clean up the' planet, and doesn't have any intention too. Just milking the system for his own pocket.

Nowhere near as gullible as you Internet conspiracy theorists.

I'm not an "Internet conspiracy theorists", whatever that is. I'me just someone who's digested all the AGW & CC stuff, and independently assigned it as bks. Gullible is someone who believes in scientists using mathmatical models that can’t work, because climate is a Chaotic system, and can't be modelled, who use 'average planet temperature', a meaningless entity, and re-assign statistical projections to be an absolute certainty. And let's add in crap temperature gathering across the planet as well.

If you REALLY felt like that then when given the opportunity you could put this in simple writting to an actual Climate Scientist and see what he says. I’ve demonstrated how easy it is talk to a Climate Scientist.

The fact that you won’t says it all.

You’d rather moan endlessly on a back-water internet thread.

This also applies to all of the other deniers on here as well.

[turbobloke]

FOIA gems on non-dangerous ocean dealkalination curiously termed ocean acidification (OA) as posted by another PHer 3 years ago regarding an Editor's request to a scientist to sex-up a draft OA dossier for an article she requested.

Editor at NYT said:

It’s very interesting, but in order to work for us it needs to be geared more toward the general reader. Can the authors give us more specific, descriptive images about how acidification has already affected the oceans? Is the situation akin to the acid rain phenomenon that hit North America? What can be done to counteract the problem?

Dr Shallin Busch at the time and possibly still a NOAA Ocean Acidification Programme scientist said:

Unfortunately, I can’t provide this information to you because it doesn’t exist. As I said in my last email, currently there are NO areas of the world that are severely degraded because of OA or even areas that we know are definitely affected by OA right now.

Honesty, always worth recognising.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

mko9 said:

Also, feel free to stop using the products of fossil fuels, like the computer you are using for post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post stting up this thread.

“stting up”

The level of discourse from some deniers never fails to disappoint.

given the (lack of) quality of your posts i think he is spot on.

[wc98]

El stovey said:

You’ve been shown to be misrepresenting scientists by the scientists themselves.

Hiding links to advocacy blogs and then only the other day altering these articles in blogs to make it look like you’ve written them.

Posting links to papers that when checked actually don’t support your argument.

Posting links to scientific organisations that when checked don’t support your argument.

Are any of those statements untrue?

yet you are happy to give a free pass to the bbc for broadcasting fake news as evidenced above , hmmm. anyone can check for themselves regarding trends in "extreme weather" (no such thing imo, just weather) and see that no one alive today has experienced a weather event that hasn't already occurred in the past. the good thing is modern life ensures events that were devastating in the past have nothing like the same effects in the present.

[mondeoman]

gadgetmac said:

So about a million a year, hardly a major investment in the scale of exxon really. Bet they spend more than that on toilet paper...

[turbobloke]

mondeoman said:

So about a million a year, hardly a major investment in the scale of exxon really. Bet they spend more than that on toilet paper...

It's curious that anyone on the agw side should post about funding as though they've made a point/

Funding from either Big Oil or Big Green doesn't of itself change the uselessness of climate models and their gigo or dig up an invisible signal in empirical data, so it's pointless at the most fundamental level.

Apart from that, funding is an own goal for agw faithful. Since 1993 the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known as the “Stimulus Bill" has been used to provide more than $26 billion in funding to climate change programmes, USA Government Accountability Office figures show 2.5% i.e. $640 million went to the pro-agw domestic climate science effort. That's over $25m per year (2019 is barely underway). This was covered in at least the last two same-old Big Oil attrition loops.

Game over. Big Government is the Waste Of Money chumpion and it's all public money not private wealth. We can recap this on the next pointless Exxon loop.

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

mko9 said:

Also, feel free to stop using the products of fossil fuels, like the computer you are using for post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post after post stting up this thread.

“stting up”

The level of discourse from some deniers never fails to disappoint.

given the (lack of) quality of your posts i think he is spot on.

I just watched a netflix program on flat earthers, its very good. They had Psychiatrists on talking about the mental issues you conspiracy theorists have...and it described you to a tee.

It’s called ‘Behind the Curve’. Watch it, it’s fascinating and will be like a mirror for you to look in.

They even accuse NASA of lying and being involved in the conspiracy together with every government on the planet and all of the Scientific Institutions and the vast majority of scientists - but not their own very tiny band of Scientists of course.

One of the many issues you conspiracy theorists have is called the Dunning-Kruger effect, seriously, it’s you guys in a nutshell.

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

El stovey said:

You’ve been shown to be misrepresenting scientists by the scientists themselves.

Hiding links to advocacy blogs and then only the other day altering these articles in blogs to make it look like you’ve written them.

Posting links to papers that when checked actually don’t support your argument.

Posting links to scientific organisations that when checked don’t support your argument.

Are any of those statements untrue?

yet you are happy to give a free pass to the bbc for broadcasting fake news as evidenced above , hmmm. anyone can check for themselves regarding trends in "extreme weather" (no such thing imo, just weather) and see that no one alive today has experienced a weather event that hasn't already occurred in the past. the good thing is modern life ensures events that were devastating in the past have nothing like the same effects in the present.

What a waste of bandwidth. You didn’t answer one of his questions.

You use the term “imo”....

The Dunning-Kruger effect refers to a bias in which people with little knowledge in an area believe they have superior knowledge. Classic sign I’m afraid.